Pine,
As you insist on such formality, can you imagine that it is a huge
turn-off for others? The thing that troubles ME most, is that a "friendly
space policy" is something that is so obvious in so many ways, that I
cannot fathom what the objection could be and therefore what the added
value is of your insistence.
When you talk about leadership, I hate such officiousness. For what, what
are the benefits, who will benefit and, yes this is a rhetorical question.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 20 July 2015 at 16:55, Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I agree that if the grants discussions were on
Foundation wiki that WMF
staff would have more leeway to make decisions without going through the
Board or community. It seems to me that Meta is a community project wiki
that is governed by community leadership and community content moderation,
and it would be scope creep for WMF to "control" portions of Meta.
Especially if the intention is for grants processes to be community led,
then community process should be followed. (In general I would like to see
more community leadership for Community Resources processes and for WMF to
have a support/backstop role. This worked well in IEGCom when I was on that
committee, and I appreciate the very cooperative relationship that we had
with Siko.) Being lax on enforcement provisions for a friendly space policy
is something that the community could address if a friendly space policy
goes through an RfC.
Thanks,
Pine
On Jul 20, 2015 4:14 AM, "Craig Franklin" <cfranklin(a)halonetwork.net>
wrote:
Indeed, as Kirill says, the grants process is
owned by the WMF (albeit
one
hosted on Meta), not by the community, so I'm
not sure why the Meta
community needs to get involved. It actually seems to me that the
foundation wiki would be a better home for processes like this so that
community bureaucracy can be avoided, but since the events of a couple of
years ago that seems like it's not a plausible option in the short term.
I do have to say I'm a bit disappointed that a lot of the negative
feedback
that certain aspects of the friendly space policy
got from the GAC seem
to
have been handwaved away; with its feeble
provisions for enforcement, it
seems like the sort of policy you have when you want to look like you're
doing something about a problem, without actually taking responsibility,
or
addressing the difficult root causes that caused
the issue in the first
place. If saying "no" to harassment in WMF processes isn't worth
upturning
a few apple carts over, then what is? I do hope
that the Community
department will have a change of heart and take a much harder line
against
offwiki harassment, starting from here.
On a completely different note, I do hope that the legal team will share
their "protocol for appearance (or threat of it) at events by banned
users".
I've been given softly-softly unofficial advice before on the
expectations
if globally banned users show up at a community
event, but it would be
good
if this could be made available for everyone that
wants to hold an event
where there is a chance that banned or otherwise problematic individuals
might show up, so as to ensure a consistent approach.
Cheers,
Craig
On 20 July 2015 at 07:15, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Pine W
<wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 1. Will the friendly-space "expectations" (policy?) for grants spaces
on
> Meta be proposed as an RfC on Meta? The
documentation on the rollout
plan
> > doesn't mention and RfC. My understanding is that the right way to
> > implement a policy change like this on Meta is for it to go through
an
> open
> > and transparent RfC process, and that the implementation decision is
> > ultimately the community's to make. The experience would inform
further
> > discussions about (1) a project-wide
friendly space policy on Meta,
and
> (2)
> > a wider consultation on a friendly space amendment to the ToS that
the
WMF
Board may eventually ratify.
I don't see any reason why an RFC would be required (or appropriate)
here.
The grantmaking process is a WMF function, and
the associated pages on
meta
are managed by the WMF grantmaking team; they are
free to impose
requirements (such as compliance with a friendly space standard) on
anyone
> participating in that process (whether as an applicant or as a
commenter
or
reviewer).
Kirill
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>